ArticleDocumenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology2010
Statistical test of VEP waveform equality.
Article in Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of luminance on the visually-evoked potential in visually-normal individuals and in mTBI/concussion.Brain injury · 2015Article
- The effect of spectral filters on VEP and alpha-wave responses.Journal of optometryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the study was to describe a theory and method for inferring the statistical significance of a visually evoked cortical potential (VEP) recording. The statistical evaluation is predicated on the pre-stimulus VEP as estimates of the cortical potentials expected when the stimulus does not produce an effect, a mathematical transform to convert the voltages into standard deviations from zero, and a time-series approach for estimating the variability of between-session VEPs under the null hypothesis. Empirical and Monte Carlo analyses address issues concerned with testability, statistical validity, clinical feasibility, as well as limitations of the proposed method. We conclude that visual electrophysiological recordings can be evaluated as a statistical study of n = 1 subject using time-series analysis when confounding effects are adequately controlled. The statistical test can be performed on either a single VEP or the difference between pairs of VEPs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19953296What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.